Fed is claimed to be the goat because he has more slams than anyone in history.

Therefore following that line of logic Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12 slams on three surfaces while Laver has 11 slams on 2 surfaces .

Furthermore Emerson should also be considered greater than Laver as Emerson has more slams .....according to TW Federer logic .

The Federer fanatics just "forget" (or really don't know) that some greats of the past, i.e. Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would have passed the 17 major mark if they had the opportunity to play all GS tournaments, as Federer had.

The Federer fanatics just "forget" (or really don't know) that some greats of the past, i.e. Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would have passed the 17 major mark if they had the opportunity to play all GS tournaments, as Federer had.

The Federer fanatics just "forget" (or really don't know) that some greats of the past, i.e. Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would have passed the 17 major mark if they had the opportunity to play all GS tournaments, as Federer had.

None of that matters to them . Come on.

__________________
"Federer has to beat Nadal(if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book." Pete Sampras

Don't sweat about it. TW logic will be completely different, a few years later.

Historically, GOAT debate in tennis community always came down to: 1. # of
slams 2. years at domination.

My prediction is that the discussion will lean more toward the domination period
in the future.

People realizes slam counts depends on many conditions of the
given era. Sampras' 14 slam was a never a true record and Federer's 17 is not
truely yet. In addition, new #1 in next era will get 20+ slams, considering current
slam conditions and the fact that pre-Open era greats like Rosewell, Laver, Gonzalez
won about 20+ slams counting both pro and amatuer.

My prediction on GOAT debate 10-20 years later, following will be more popular factor:

# of slams : greatest in one era.
years of domination : compare greats of different era

Fed is claimed to be the goat because he has more slams than anyone in history.

Therefore following that line of logic Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12 slams on three surfaces while Laver has 11 slams on 2 surfaces .

Furthermore Emerson should also be considered greater than Laver as Emerson has more slams .....according to TW Federer logic .

Every Slam is a Major, but not all Majors are Slams.

I think the most (though not all) of the community when incorporating pre-1968 players has included Pro Majors in their totals. So totals of Majors (ie pre-mid 1920's majors eg World Hard Court Championships plus current 4 majors plus Pro Slams). Added to majors is season end championships since 1970 if applicable - in the greats achievement list

So by that above Rating Laver has 19, Rosewall 23 Majors approx etc etc - so both well over Emerson.

But they don't simply total Majors, they look at other things like dominance ie time spend being number 1 etc.So in the laver rosewall example - Rosewall had arguably 6 years as number 1 or co-number 1 and laver had arguably 7 years as number 1 or co-number 1.

It simply must be like this otherwise Hbarty is a superior player to Nadal, if H2H is the primary criteria. H2H could be used as a tie-breaker if the other criteria seem to come out level.

There is an understanding though that Open era majors are more prestigious that pre-1968 Pro Majors, or Amateur Majors. So that is factored in.

Fed is claimed to be the goat because he has more slams than anyone in history.

Therefore following that line of logic Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12 slams on three surfaces while Laver has 11 slams on 2 surfaces

Surfaces are irrelevant in the career/calendar slam factoring. They are what they are at the time of playing. If you go down the path of saying Laver had it easier because more of his majors were on grass then you have to also consider that the Aussie Open and Wimbledon have been much easier for slow court specialists to win in the last decade moreso than any time in tennis history.

Winning all four in a calendar year is the holy grail of tennis. It is probably worthy of doubling that year's slam total when considering a player's overall greatness - in which case Laver should be viewed as having 15 majors (if we only include the open era grand slam).

(Similarly, I think achieving the career slam also warrants some sort of numbers boost when comparing players since it was historically such a rare feat - only 3 people have managed it since 1970. Other rare achievements like winning a major multiple times in a row could also have some extra weighting added, maybe an extra 10% each extra consecutive year a major is won)

Surfaces are irrelevant in the career/calendar slam factoring. They are what they are at the time of playing. If you go down the path of saying Laver had it easier because more of his majors were on grass then you have to also consider that the Aussie Open and Wimbledon have been much easier for slow court specialists to win in the last decade moreso than any time in tennis history.

Winning all four in a calendar year is the holy grail of tennis. It is probably worthy of doubling that year's slam total when considering a player's overall greatness - in which case Laver should be viewed as having 15 majors (if we only include the open era grand slam).

(Similarly, I think achieving the career slam also warrants some sort of numbers boost when comparing players since it was historically such a rare feat - only 3 people have managed it since 1970. Other rare achievements like winning a major multiple times in a row could also have some extra weighting added, maybe an extra 10% each extra consecutive year a major is won)

I don't think surfaces are irrelevant .

__________________
"Federer has to beat Nadal(if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book." Pete Sampras

If surfaces are irrelevant why do all the federinas whinge about skewed h2h and Nadal's domination on clay?

Because they are two different topics.

One is comparing all players across the entire open era on a level playing field which is says all majors are regarded as equal in a straight count regardless of surface/year. Explanation of this is usually not necessary for functioning adults who have watched tennis for more than two weeks (even though we all know Wimbledon is really worth more ).

The other is a direct head to head comparison where the surface argument is used to explain or excuse one or the other's performance, but only relative to each other. The h2h is a facetious line of debate for any situation other than peers who have very similar accomplishments or to make a surface comparison. Since Nadal is not yet Federer's peer it is pointless.

Even if it were the head to head can also be conveniently warped another way thus: Federer's clay h2h versus the field (minus Nadal) is far better than Nadal's hard court h2h versus the field (minus Federer). That would be a far more apt way to determine a player's surface ability than simply showing a straight person to person h2h.

Even if it were the head to head can also be conveniently warped another way thus: Federer's clay h2h versus the field (minus Nadal) is far better than Nadal's hard court h2h versus the field (minus Federer). That would be a far more apt way to determine a player's surface ability than simply showing a straight person to person h2h.

No it isn't FAR better at all lol.

Nadal's HC record is 282 - 85

Federer's clay record is 187 - 55

I don't get why you'd want to subtract Fed and Nadal from the conversation because they are part of the field. The difference is 2% in favor of Federer, but Nadal has had to play 367 matches on HC as opposed to Fed's 242 on clay. For some reason, I doubt Federer would be higher than 77% W/L after another 125 matches on clay...

__________________
"Nadal is a good example of an counter puncher" - RF-18
"Cilic has huge serve too, so that gave Karlovic extra confidence" - jg153040